HIT OR MISS: Mets fans will be distraught if Jose Reyes, getting cheered after his second homer in last night's 13-inning loss, departs in free agency, but if he re-signs, the team will have an aging shortstop eating up payroll. Photo: N.Y. Post: Charles Wenzelberg

The only thing more dangerous for the Mets than not signing Jose Reyes is signing him. Or vice versa.

Well, you see the dilemma. The Mets face their biggest decision of this offseason — and maybe for years to come — and there is no right answer and a pretty good chance of two wrong ones. The likelihood for regret either way is rather strong.

Reyes is in a Mets uniform today for the final time in 2011. And if it is the last time ever, you know what the emotions of the fan base will be when it is announced this winter that he is a Giant or National or (fill in the blank): This is about the Wilpons being cheap, the Mets not being capable of keeping even the best of their own.

And there is no statement the Wilpons hate more — except, perhaps, “That is Irving Picard on line 4″ — than hearing they are penny pinchers or incapable of running a first-class organization. They would do almost anything to change that discussion, perhaps even overpaying a fragile shortstop.

In general, organizations should not make decisions for emotional reasons or to appease their fans. But just how much of their base can the Mets disenchant before it is a tipping point that sets the franchise back in support and attendance for a decade or more? How much animus can this ownership group engender before its mere presence atop the leadership flow chart drives even the most loyal fans toward dispassion?

Beyond Reyes’ skills, these are the central reasons why the Mets are motivated to keep Reyes. Except that is a trap door, as well. Because should a team in the Mets’ current condition really be allocating big money within a dwindling payroll for a multi-talented but injury-prone player?

My suspicion is that even with the two DL stints necessitated by strained left hamstrings and his speed-game shutdown over these final few weeks, Reyes will receive nothing less than six years for $114 million in free agency.

As one NL executive said when I asked if the final numbers could fall to, say, five years at $90 million, “If it does, I will buy every meal for you at the Winter Meetings. . . . One thing proven over time is guys get the years and the dollars; just look at Jayson Werth.”

So you wonder, knowing the Mets, will they just be in the bidding, but not really; attempting to finish second with dignity so they can tell their fan base they tried and then do the off-the-record greedy player thing? Or are they really going for it to attempt to shift the subject of discussion about ownership?

After all, the Wilpons probably are feeling a bit more financially secure and bold after yesterday’s judicial ruling that seemingly will make it more difficult for Picard to get the bulk of the money he was seeking as the trustee in the Bernie Madoff fraud case.

Is there a better way for Mets ownership to try to suggest a new chapter to even its most ardent detractors than to spend big to keep the team’s most talented, popular player? But should the Mets be doing that, regardless of the team’s finances?

Let’s assume for a second that Reyes actually is going to sign for five years. That is 810 games. What do you think the over/under should be on the number of games Reyes plays? It is probably 600. And considering how much was at stake this year and Reyes still could not stay healthy, I would take the under.

Now let’s think of this in another way — even with Reyes, would the most optimistic fan see the Mets as serious contenders in 2012 or ’13? Remember a hefty contract would be robbing the rotation to pay Reyes. Every dollar earmarked for shortstop does not go to find a desperately needed No. 1-2 starter or to overhaul the bullpen or to address other needs. The expectation is the payroll will be no more than $115 million next year, which would mean shoehorning Reyes in at the expense of fixing anything else.

Thus, the probability is the Mets will not be contenders until, at earliest, Year 3 of Reyes’ contract. He will be 31 then. It is hardly ancient, but it is two more seasons on those dubious legs. So let’s do the number speculation again: There will be 486 games left on Reyes’ contract at that point. Do you think he would play more or fewer than 350 of those games? And if it is fewer, then what chance do the Mets have to contend on the back end of the contract, especially since Reyes will be eating about $20 million of the payroll annually?

So the Mets cannot expect clarity in selecting a path. Damned if they do, damned if they don’t.

It feels like the classic situation for the Mets in this era: Their most important decision in years plays like a lose-lose proposition.